Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australia giving up on the sprints?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by paulthefan

    Boyle was 17 years old when she finaled in 72 with a 11.23, that is worth sub 11 every day of the week today... we dont see anything like that today.
    Actually she was 21 in Munich when that time got her a silver. Of course we all know her 22.45 200 silver, a sliver of a 0.05 behind the East German Stecher, would have been a world record if she hadn't been forced to follow the stench of a pseudo-woman across the line.

    Eldrick's comments on Boyle show that he is being deliberately confrontational - I don't believe for a second he's as ignorant or obtuse as he is pretending to be. :P
    Take good care of yourself.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by eldrick
      copobianco ran 20.18 in wc in '93 which is comparable to norman's best, but albeit on better track
      albeit is a big word in this case and it greatly weakens your argument... Cap was 20.18 in 93, that is 25 years after Norman (that is a quarter of a century for all you bright guys) , now fast forward again to 2008, 15 years later ( for a total of almost 1/2 a century from P.Norman for all the bright guys) and the AUS best turn out 20.5ish... the trend is glaring/stark/obvious, why so hard for a good mind like yours to see that 40 years after Norman, todays AUS dashers are greatly underperforming.


      (Norman) his best is ~ 20.2 sea-level & within the following 10y ( contemparary era for him ), there were 1/2 dozen guys who ran 20.0 - 20.1, meaning they were significantly faster than norman & by your extrapolation making them 19.5 - 19.6 guys today !
      So was Carr marginal because there were a few guys running 20.0 on a curve in the next decade.... you know how to make it up as you go..
      But if your question is: Was Tommie Smith superior to todays 19.7second dashers it is very easy for me to say verily yes, and that is a no brainer.


      in whole of '80s, only 2 guys clocked 19.7s - King & deloach, who no one woud argue against, were a class above norman ...
      if they coud "only" manage 19.7, then it defies logic that an inferior runner in norman coud...i can see him around 20-flat nowdays, but nothing better
      This is 2008 not 1980... you are jumping around decades like this is hopscotch.. Even a novice knows that King and Deloach are better talents than Xman .. so you should too. .. However even if Norman were a 20flat talent today (I say better than that) then even starting with your flawed analysis you would come to the same conclusion: That AUS is underperforming by more than .5 seconds relative to their fathers.



      as for boyle, you need to check those facts ( i'm not sure myself ) - she was 21y in '72, if she ran 11.23 @ 17y, then it was a altitude making it more like 11.3 - nice but not super-dooper for a 17y ole....i certainly woudn't call a low-altitude 11.23 back then a guaranteed < 11 today - maybe about 11.10 but no way <11
      Can you imagine a 17yr old AUS girl running a 11.3 today?.. we disagree by about a tenth regarding Boyle, Im still convinced she is under 11 every day of the summer. But even if I accept your flawed analysis the conclusion is the same, AUS women are underperforming by about .2 seconds or more in the 100m relative to their mothers...

      all this proves the case: AUS sprinters are underpeforming relative to their ancestors. So a man thinks, so he becomes.

      Let me make it clear, if AUS sprinters were simply maintaining their performance levels from the late50s to the mid 70s we would see the following national records (approximations of course):
      100m M9.90 W10.90
      200m M19.7 W21.7
      400m M44.00 W49.00




      Mennisco is right, you are playing the contrarian.
      ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

      Comment


      • #33
        Only 3 Aussie women have run faster than Boyle since Raelene's 22.45 in Munich 1972. They were Cathy Freeman, 22.25 in the Victoria '94 Commonwealth Games, Melinda Gainsford-Taylor, 22.23 in Stuttgart 1997, and Denise Boyd [mother of vaulter Alana] with a 22.38 in Sydney 1980. The best Gainsford-Taylor could manage in front of a home crowd in Sydney 2000 was 22.42, while Freeman really lagged in that race in 22.53. Boyle and Boyd cannot even be mentioned in the same serious breath; Boyle trumped her 22.50-22.73 in the '74 Commonwealth Games, while Boyd couldn't even break 23 seconds in Montreal '76 and only ran 22.76 in Moscow '80.

        Raelene was the consummate big meet runner; if she'd been in Sydney '00 [having been born 17 years later] AND on drugs like Marion Jones, you'd have seen a 21.95, minimum. Without peds, she'd have kicked the arses of those other 2 countrywomen. Among Aussies, she is without peer. And can you imagine 22.45 getting 4th-6th in Australia today? Yeah right.

        http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_200ok.htm

        PER-I-OD.

        Have a look at the 2008 women's Olympic final and still tell me Boyle is 4th or 5th rate out of Australia:

        http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletic ... 2008_w.asp

        2004 Athens:

        http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletic ... 2004_w.asp

        1996 Atlanta:

        http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletic ... 1996_w.asp

        In no way should a clean youngster from 1972 be compared to some of the monsters who've run faster since her heyday.
        Take good care of yourself.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Mennisco
          Only 3 Aussie women have run faster than Boyle since Raelene's 22.45 in Munich 1972. ...
          PER-I-OD.
          Ponder the fact that in 35 years, with superior training and track surfaces AUS sprinters are behind the tight curve of Munich. Think what we would be saying if the USA were unable to match it's Munich sprinting levels.

          AUS has not seen anyone even remotely near Boyle's equal.

          Sometimes facts are so obvious that a few smart people feel compelled to argue against them. ..

          Now a case can be made that a nation's NR does not move forward in small increments continuously every year. True enough, but the overwhelming emprical evidence from AUS sprinting, in comparisons with other nations, suggests gross underperformance.
          ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

          Comment


          • #35
            18 year old Canberra sprinter Mel Breen ran 11.33 (1.9) yesterday and 13 year old Stephanie Pollard ran 12.22 in the same race.

            Pretty sure that Breen moves to number 3 all-time Australian Junior behind Boyle and McLellan.

            http://athleticscapital.ning.com/profil ... qualifying

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by paulthefan
              Sometimes facts are so obvious that a few smart people feel compelled to argue against them. ..
              I've already exceeded my daily quota of pics on here, otherwise I'd be coughing up something ........rude..??

              :lol:
              Take good care of yourself.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Australia giving up on the sprints?

                Originally posted by Paul Henry
                Do you realize that you trying to act knowledgeable on this topic by quoting historical information from "Wikipedia"?Although the information is of merit its probably smarter not to say you sourced from there.
                Some of the other 'facts' in this thread could do with some referencing of their own...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Australia giving up on the sprints?

                  Originally posted by paulthefan

                  Isnt it interesting that AUS has M200 record dating back to the 1960s and has not produced a female sprinter near Boyle's caliber from the late 70s. Regardless of what is happening elsewhere in the world it is clear that their ability to compete on the world stage is as much a function of their own output/pro(re)gress as it is anything else.
                  We also have the men's 800m record dating from 1968 and the women's record dates back to 1976 with much lower performance levels in these events at world/olympic level than for male or female sprinters

                  Oh and until 1968, the fastest 200 run by an Aussie male was Jim Carlton's 20.6y from 1932..

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    paulie & mennie

                    - i'd say carr's 20.3 on cinders was worth a 20.0 - 20.1 on a synthetic track - better value than norman's 20.06A ( probably a 20.2 basic )

                    - x-man may be behind King/deloach because of lack of metal, but 19.6 at aged 21y & if fit, reason to believe he wouda improved, means i don't see any reason why his talent is significantly inferior to those 2

                    - boyle had pbs of ?11.23/22.45 - they were good for early 70s, but if you look at that "era" of the '70s, they are not outstanding - richter was 11.01 by '76 ( & another coupla quick fgr gals ) & evelyn 11.05, irene did 22.21 in '74 & by decade end, leaving out ddr, evelyn was down to 21.83 !

                    if you want to knock 1/4s off boyle's 100m & 1/2s off her 200, then you'd have to extend those to like of irene/evelyn/richter - making them 10.75 - 10.80 ( evelyn did eventually run this 4y later ) & 21.3 for evelyn ( 21.71 for irene ) !

                    common-sense tells us such huge improvements are very unlikely - boyle nowdays maybe somewhere around 11.10/22.20 - these are times of ~ gevaert who has been best non-american/carib sprinter of past few years

                    the argument for american/carib sprinters revolutionising the depth-pool is same as africans in middle distance running today - if you had the sheer numbers of kennster, geb, komen, tergat, etc like talent running in '70s ( talent was there ) as they have been in this era, there is little/no chance the likes of viren/puttemans/quax/bedford/pre/etc wouda got anywhere near a gold

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      If Boyle had lived in a country where every move of an athlete had been reported, you'd have been more impressed than just reading her official record.

                      She was 16 heading to Mexico. She was not allowed to leave Australia to compete in Europe pre-Munich. She came out of the winter and raced. That's how it was in those days in Australia.

                      Comparing Oz athletes from the 70's is not just about the track and the timing. It's about the preparation and the opportunity.

                      And when Boyle was false started out of the 200 in the big meet, she was ready to go 21.7. I was in her squad as she prepared. She was flying, and approaching her true potential.

                      Raelene Boyle was one of the greatest competitors track has seen. If she'd lived in the UK or the US, she'd be given more credit than she currently receives.

                      Whichever way you look at it, Australian sprinters have gone backward.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by mal
                        And when Boyle was false started out of the 200 in the big meet, she was ready to go 21.7
                        ???

                        she didn't break 11.2 in that meet

                        no matter how "unalike" the 200 is to the 100, it is still determined by how fast your 100 ability is at the absolute extreme

                        for an 11.2 gal, if she ran absolutely flat-out 1st 100, you'd have to add ~0.2 to 0,25s for the curve ( tight curves back then, more like 0.15 - 0.20 for modern tracks ) -> ~ 11.40 to 11.45

                        for an "ideal" athlete, best 200 time off that is

                        ~ ( 2*100m split ) - 0.95 = ~ 21.85 to 21.95

                        fastest an 11.2 gal can theoretically run a 200 is about that & does require the impossible of putting in 100m pb effort on the curve & holding on for another 100m !

                        21.7 can't be done off 11.2

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by eldrick
                          paulie & mennie
                          - i'd say carr's 20.3 on cinders was worth a 20.0 - 20.1 on a synthetic track - better value than norman's 20.06A ( probably a 20.2 basic )
                          your arguments are scatological, no one ever said Norman was Carr's equal only that your ad-hoc "decade" rule was useless.

                          - x-man may be behind King/deloach because of lack of metal, but 19.6 at aged 21y & if fit, reason to believe he wouda improved, means i don't see any reason why his talent is significantly inferior to those 2
                          xman behind king.....that is an understatement. Deloach was young too.. .. all we have are the results. you dont see xman behind them, but Xman is .4 off the WR and King and Del were at or better than it.


                          - boyle had pbs of ?11.23/22.45 - they were good for early 70s, but if you look at that "era" of the '70s, they are not outstanding - richter was 11.01 by '76 ( & another coupla quick fgr gals ) & evelyn 11.05, irene did 22.21 in '74 & by decade end, leaving out ddr, evelyn was down to 21.83 !
                          You have no point it seems?... No one said Boyle was Ashford's equal, .. the argument here is whether Boyle was far far ahead of todays AUS crop of sprinters. It is the case that Boyle is/was far far superior to what AUS is producing now. Your use of the red-herring is quite effective, but the readers here are not dogs and wont fall for it.

                          Nevertheless I doubt that Boyle was incapable of sub 22 dashing, but that is not the point, the point is that today AUS should have sub 22 dashers but rather struggles to keep sub 23 dashers, something Boyle could run at 17years.


                          if you want to knock 1/4s off boyle's 100m & 1/2s off her 200, then you'd have to extend those to like of irene/evelyn/richter - making them 10.75 - 10.80 ( evelyn did eventually run this 4y later ) & 21.3 for evelyn ( 21.71 for irene ) !
                          Evelyn is probably the greatest 200m female of all time. We would have to look carefully at all the conditions of each of their PRs to know what to adjust to today.

                          the argument for american/carib sprinters revolutionising the depth-pool is same as africans in middle distance running today - if you had the sheer numbers of kennster, geb, komen, tergat, etc like talent running in '70s ( talent was there ) as they have been in this era, there is little/no chance the likes of viren/puttemans/quax/bedford/pre/etc wouda got anywhere near a gold
                          This argument may have some merit, but it does not answer the question posed by the thread: Why are AUS sprint performance levels degrading ? Could a Boyle compete (finalist) today? These are two closely linked questions.. The answer to the later is yes, that case has been made here and should be obvious. More importantly it has implications for answering the first.
                          ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            apologies to carr, 20.36 auto on cinders is maybe 0.4 - 0.5s quicker on synthetic making him an ~ 19.86 - 19.96 guy back in '64

                            as for decade rule, i see no problem with a coupla og cycles after any run being part of contemporary era - hence any clockings between '72 - '80 will be contemporary for comparison purposes - you just have to decide what cycles you want to use ( '64 - '72, '68 - '76, '72 - '80 )

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by eldrick
                              apologies to carr, 20.36 auto on cinders is maybe 0.4 - 0.5s quicker on synthetic making him an ~ 19.86 - 19.96 guy back in '64

                              as for decade rule, i see no problem with a coupla og cycles after any run being part of contemporary era - hence any clockings between '72 - '80 will be contemporary for comparison purposes - you just have to decide what cycles you want to use ( '64 - '72, '68 - '76, '72 - '80 )
                              agree on Carr, I was going to say the same above but thought it would only get us off the issue. Carr was a giant and as we have said together many times his performance in '64 is not appreciated enough.
                              ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by eldrick

                                she didn't break 11.2 in that meet...........21.7 can't be done off 11.2
                                I agree, 21.7 is a far stretch. But she said herself she had trained exclusively for the 200, and 100 champion Richter said the Germans considered her the favorite for the 200. Her 11.23 in the dead air of Montreal with a 0.0 wind was sufficiently better than her 11.23 in Munich to project a significant improvement over the '72 22.45; she'd likely have won the gold with ~ 22.30, or maybe even a WR.

                                Compare Boyle's 11.23 on that Montreal track with Marlies Gohr's 11.17 3 years later, behind Ashford's 11.06. The 1979 times were hindered by a slight headwind. Another thing: Boyle running the 100 when her best event would have easily been the 400 makes it easy to misunderstand how great a 200 sprinter she was. She nearly mowed down Stecher in the Munich homestretch. 10 meters out, it was either "girl's" race.

                                There's not been one single Yankee white girl who was remotely the calibre of Raelene Boyle. Funny, given how many Irish-Americans there are.
                                Take good care of yourself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X